UISUMBING vs MERALCO

GR No. 142943, 3 April 2002

FACTS:
The plaintiff, spouses Antonio and Lorna Quisumbing are owners of a house
located at Greenmeadows Avenue, Quezon City.  Around 9AM on March 3, 1995,
defendant’s inspectors were conducting a routine on the spot inspection of all
single phase meters at the house.  Permission was granted by the plaintiff’s
secretary.  It was found that the meter had been tampered with and the
information was relayed to the secretary who conveyed the information to the
owners of the house.  The inspectors brought the meter to their laboratory for
further verifications.  If proven that the meter was indeed tampered, defendant
had to temporarily disconnect the electric services.

The inspectors returned and informed plaintiff of the findings of the laboratory. 
And unless they pay the amount of P178, 875.01 representing the difference in
the bill, their electric supply will be disconnected.

The plaintiff filed complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction despite the immediate reconnection.

ISSUE:
Whether or not

1. MERALCO acted without due process and lack of regard for Quisumbings’ rights
and reputation.
2. The Quisumbings be entitled for damages.
HELD:
Moral damages may be recovered when rights of individuals including right
against the deprivation of property without due process of law are violated. 
Exemplary damages on the other hand are imposed by way of example or
correction for public.

The Court recognized the effort of MERALCO in preventing illegal use of

electricity.  However, any action must be done in strict observance of the rights of
the people. Meralco may immediately disconnect service in cases of meter
tampering, but it has to be personally witnessed and attested by an officer of the
law or by a duly authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board. 
During the inspection, no government official or ERB representative was present.
Supreme Court ordered the plaintiff to pay respondent the billing differential 0f
P193, 332. 96 while MERALCO was ordered to pay petitioners moral and
exemplary damages including attorney’s fees.

GASHEEM SHOOKAT BAKSH vs. CA

219 SCRA 115

FACTS:
Marilou Gonzales, filed a complaint dated October 27, 1987 for damages against
the petitioner for the alleged breach of their agreement to get married.  She met
the petitioner in Dagupan, he was an Iranian medical exchange student. He later
courted her and proposed marriage.  The petitioner even went to Marilou’s house
to secure approval of her parents.

The petitioner forced the respondent to live with him in his apartment. She filed a
complaint because the petitioner started maltreating and threatening her.  He
even tied the respondent in the apartment while he was in school and drugged
her.  Marilou at one time became pregnant but the petitioner administered a drug
to abort the baby.

Petitioner repudiated the marriage agreement and told Marilou to not live with
him since he is already married to someone in Bacolod.  He claimed that he never
proposed marriage, neither sought consent and approval of Marliou’s parents. 
He claimed that he asked Marilou to stay out of his apartment since the latter
deceived him by stealing money and his passport.  The private respondent prayed
for damages and reimbursements of actual expenses.

ISSUE:
Whether breach of promise to marry can give rise to cause claim for damages.

HELD:
 
Breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong.  The court held that
when a man uses his promise of marriage to deceive a woman to consent to his
malicious desires, he commits fraud and willfully injures the woman.  In that
instance, the court found that petitioner’s deceptive promise to marry led Marilou
to surrender her virtue and womanhood.

Moral damages can be claimed when such promise to marry was a deceptive ploy
to have carnal knowledge with the woman and actual damages should be paid for
the wedding preparation expenses.  Petitioner even committed deplorable acts in
disregard of the laws of the country.